On 11/3/20 3:11 AM, kamlesh kumar wrote:
Here is the copyright assignment under which i will be contributing.
Ah, great. I've now committed the patch.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:50 PM kamlesh kumar <kamleshbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you see a reason this wouldn't work?
No, I do not see any.This is good.
so it's probably simplest to go ahead with mine.
Yes, thank you.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:48 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/2/20 10:10 AM, kamlesh kumar wrote:
addressed jason comments.
no regression due to this, tested on x86_64 linux.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 11:09 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 10/22/20 1:31 PM, kamlesh kumar wrote:
Attaching the patch file.
>>Instead of building a hash table, would it work to handle ambiguity by
>>checking whether one of the classes is a base of the other?
Fixing for cases like: struct B: A<int>,A<int,int> may not be cleaner
this way.
Why not? Your patch does extra work even when there's no ambiguity.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 3:23 AM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com
<mailto:ja...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 10/21/20 6:32 AM, kamlesh kumar wrote:
> > gcc/cp/ChangeLog
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > 2020-10-21 Kamlesh Kumar <kamleshbha...@gmail.com
<mailto:kamleshbha...@gmail.com>>
> >
> > PR c++/97453
> > * pt.c (get_template_base): Implement DR2303,
> > Consider closest base while template
> > deduction when base of base also matches.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > 2020-10-21 Kamlesh Kumar <kamleshbha...@gmail.com
<mailto:kamleshbha...@gmail.com>>
> >
> > * g++.dg/Drs/dr2303.C: New Test
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > As part of this patch I Implemented fix for below defect report in cwg
> > https://wg21.cmeerw.net/cwg/issue2303 .
>
> Thanks!
>
> Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html for guidance on email
> subject lines; for this patch I'd think something like
>
> [PATCH] c++: Implement DR2303 [PR97453]
>
> Also, your patch was corrupted by word wrap; the easiest way to avoid
> that is probably to attach the file rather than copy it into the message.
>
> > Reg tested on x86_64 and did not found any failure.
> > Patch summary: Remove base of base from list of bases
> >
> > created a hash_set from list of bases and then iterate over each
> > element of hash_set and find its list of bases and remove this from
> > hash_set if present.
> > and finally, deduction succeeds if in hash_set remains only single
> > element or it's empty.
> > otherwise deduction is ambiguous.
>
> Instead of building a hash table, would it work to handle ambiguity by
> checking whether one of the classes is a base of the other?
This is what I had in mind; it seems clearer to me. Do you see a reason
this wouldn't work?
Also, I notice that you still don't seem to have a copyright assignment
on file with the FSF. I and Jonathan Wakely both asked about it last
year; has there been any progress on that? Your patch is too large to
go in without a copyright assignment, so it's probably simplest to go
ahead with mine.
Thanks,
Jason
